Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
>But I agree that there was no support/objection/discussion
>on this on the ML until the session.
That is the reason why I asked to add more introductory slides to the
presentation.
Regards,
Masato
On 2014/10/15 17:27, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>Dear Acharya,
>
>
>At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:49:14 +0530
>In message
><CAEEwkf7UvV=eST5ukkZGVBkG8ffsX6KUHX7eyzKkgzoiDcs5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
> "Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update"
> "Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>|
>|
>| I hope you agree that the APNIC Staff Proposal was not discussed at all
>on
>| this mailing list (except the post by Mr Wilson informing us about the
>| existence of the proposal). Given that the mailing list was created for
>the
>| sole purpose of discussing the proposal, the absence of any discussion
>on
>| the mailing list suggests that something went wrong. Or does no
>discussion
>| (even a +1) mean consensus on the mailing list as well?
>|
>Reality is that :
>
>Paul Wilson informed of the Secretariat Proposal on September 8,
>The session in Brisbane was held on September 17.
>We had one message following the original.
>
>But I agree that there was no support/objection/discussion
>on this on the ML until the session.
>
>
>| Obviously not everyone can physically attend the APNIC conference. Even
>if
>| you may argue consensus was reached at the conference, I doubt you can
>| suggest consensus was reached on the mailing list.
>|
>| I am not pointing fingers. I was just hopeful of seeing a more vibrant
>| discussion.
>|
>For sure, for those who cannot attend in person,
>APNIC provides remote participation means.
>
>
>| Maybe you could start another thread on this mailing list explaining the
>| proposal in detail and inviting comments from the list members.
>|
>| Please take this as a constructive suggestion.
>|
>That's a good suggestion, indeed.
>
>I am not sure what region or country you reside, I would
>like to mention Asia Pacific region has the tendency that
>people are quiet in discussion. I know this through my
>15 year experience in APNIC forum.
>
>I understand and agree that it should have been much better
>if we successfully had had active on-the-list discussion
>>from the peoople in region. It is a shame, indeed.
>
>
>BTW, do you have any comment or input for the substance of
>the proposal? If you have any, I'd love to know.
>
>
>Best,
>Akinori
>
>
>|
>|
>| On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Masato Yamanishi <
>| myamanis@japan-telecom.com> wrote:
>|
>| > Guru,
>| > Firstly, I cannot copy and paste the transcript from some reason, let
>me
>| > refer videos of each session instead of copying the transcript.
>| >
>| > See inline my comment.
>| >
>| > Oct 15, 2014 9:44 AM、Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> のメッセージ:
>| >
>| > Hi,
>| >
>| > This list (IANAxfer) created by APNIC to discuss the number
>community's
>| > response to the ICG RFP has been absolutely silent for almost a
>month. I am
>| > curious to know the current status of the process in the numbers
>community;
>| > and if an alternate medium/list is now being used to discuss the
>transition.
>| >
>| > I'm also curious to know whether the APNIC staff proposal presented
>during
>| > APNIC-38 has been accepted as the final proposal?
>| >
>| >
>| > As I mentinoed in AMM, this draft proposal was accepted by APNIC
>community
>| > as starting point of further discussion, not the final proposal. Then
>we
>| > will continue the discussion on this list until Nov.
>| > (See around 29:00 in AMM session 3 video
>| > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KHOi7C-x8)
>| >
>| > I gather from the transcripts that the APNIC staff proposal was met
>with
>| > silence during the conference - and that this silence was taken to be
>as
>| > full consensus.
>| >
>| >
>| > We discussed it for 38.5mins (you can see it from 35:30 to 1:14:00 in
>the
>| > video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg2Kp6SRhQQ ), so I cannot
>| > understand why you call it "met with silence".
>| > Rather, we, APNIC community, had active and health discussion, and as
>a
>| > moderator, I am confident we could reach to enough level of consensus
>in
>| > APNIC community.
>| > Also, when I asked community views about second principle in draft
>| > proposal, Dean said very useful comment, so you cannot call it
>silence in
>| > that meaning too. (See at 1:15:00 in same video)
>| > Certainly, I didn't ask the consensus by show of hands nor voting, but
>| > this proposal is NOT a policy proposal for our number resources, so
>we have
>| > multiple ways to ask community's view, and I am also sure that the
>way I
>| > asked the consensus is fully accepted in APNIC community.
>| >
>| > Regards,
>| > Masato Yamanishi
>| >
>| >
>| >
>conference.apnic.net/data/38/20140917-1100-IANA-Stewardship-Transition.txt
>| >
>| > Further, how will the proposal be coordinated amongst the 5 RIRs at
>the
>| > NRO level?
>| >
>| > Thanks,
>| > Acharya
>| >
>| > _______________________________________________
>| > IANAxfer mailing list
>| > IANAxfer@apnic.net
>| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>| >
>| >
>|
>|
>|
>| _______________________________________________
>| IANAxfer mailing list
>| IANAxfer@apnic.net
>| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>|
>|
>|